The bill states that only the specially grown stuff can be sold, but what about growing your own?

From the article...

Quote:

Washington will allow those at least 21 years old to buy as much as one ounce (28 grams) of marijuana from a licensed retailer. Colorado’s measure allows possession of an ounce, and permits growing as many as six plants in private, secure areas. Oregon voters rejected a similar measure.

For me, it has nothing to due with the decriminalizing of under 1 oz, it has to due with the mandate of the DUID. The current DUID mandate means if you're found under impairment (anything over 5 nanograms of THC, which can be in your system up to 30 days) you have no way to defend in court, even with a medical card.

With guaranteed conviction rates and increased fines, prosecutors will have every incentive to seek charges — instead of the evidence-based DUI law we have now, in which impairment must be proven.

It could become worse under the referendum, causing a public backlash of buyer's remorse, and set the entire legalization movement backward.

ok it's been legalized, so does this mean now the ffeds can't arrest people?

It's still federally illegal and since federal laws trump state laws people can still be prosecuted under federal law.

Basically the ball is in the feds' court, and they've been pretty silent on the issue so far.

then what the hell is the point of even voting then?

how the hell can you get pot legal if you can vote on it?

On the large scale of things it shows the feds what the voters want.

Besides, medical marijuana is legal in close to 20 states even though it's still federally illegal. As far as I know the feds only target large scale dispensaries or large scale operations in general. They tend to leave the small guys alone.

For me, it has nothing to due with the decriminalizing of under 1 oz, it has to due with the mandate of the DUID. The current DUID mandate means if you're found under impairment (anything over 5 nanograms of THC, which can be in your system up to 30 days) you have no way to defend in court, even with a medical card.

With guaranteed conviction rates and increased fines, prosecutors will have every incentive to seek charges — instead of the evidence-based DUI law we have now, in which impairment must be proven.

It could become worse under the referendum, causing a public backlash of buyer's remorse, and set the entire legalization movement backward.

You can always defend yourself with the scientific research which found that it has no negative affect on driving skills in low (i.e. normal amount one would consume) concentrations. That's why I doubt you'll see that happen. Scientific facts are hard to disagree with (Yeah, I know, and yet OJ walked the first time he was on trial).

For me, it has nothing to due with the decriminalizing of under 1 oz, it has to due with the mandate of the DUID. The current DUID mandate means if you're found under impairment (anything over 5 nanograms of THC, which can be in your system up to 30 days) you have no way to defend in court, even with a medical card.

With guaranteed conviction rates and increased fines, prosecutors will have every incentive to seek charges — instead of the evidence-based DUI law we have now, in which impairment must be proven.

It could become worse under the referendum, causing a public backlash of buyer's remorse, and set the entire legalization movement backward.

You can always defend yourself with the scientific research which found that it has no negative affect on driving skills in low (i.e. normal amount one would consume) concentrations. That's why I doubt you'll see that happen. Scientific facts are hard to disagree with (Yeah, I know, and yet OJ walked the first time he was on trial).

The American court room and political arena has never let something like science get in the way of making money and playing power games.

For me, it has nothing to due with the decriminalizing of under 1 oz, it has to due with the mandate of the DUID. The current DUID mandate means if you're found under impairment (anything over 5 nanograms of THC, which can be in your system up to 30 days) you have no way to defend in court, even with a medical card.

With guaranteed conviction rates and increased fines, prosecutors will have every incentive to seek charges — instead of the evidence-based DUI law we have now, in which impairment must be proven.

It could become worse under the referendum, causing a public backlash of buyer's remorse, and set the entire legalization movement backward.

You can always defend yourself with the scientific research which found that it has no negative affect on driving skills in low (i.e. normal amount one would consume) concentrations. That's why I doubt you'll see that happen. Scientific facts are hard to disagree with (Yeah, I know, and yet OJ walked the first time he was on trial).

The American court room and political arena has never let something like science get in the way of making money and playing power games.

Well, that's more or less what I was alluding to when I referred to OJ.

I think the bigger issue here is the criminal element of pot. The Drug War costs the US incredible amounts of money, not just in 'fighting' drug use but mostly in incarcerating so many people. Something like 50% of the jail population in US is there for drug crimes (too lazy to look it up right now). Not a coincidence that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. If the Tea Baggers and Republicans were really serious about cutting the budget they'd be all over this, never mind the incredible potential in tax revenue.

Then you have the fact that police and judicial officials could spend more of their time and resources on real crimes like rape and murder. Imagine that, instead of chasing down 15 year olds smoking a doobie in a park, cops could be putting more footwork into tracking down that missing kid.

Perhaps most of all, we have to consider that felons in the US lose the right to vote. Literally millions of people across the US cannot vote because they happened to get caught with some weed. And who does this affect the most? The poor, minorities and other such groups that can't afford lawyers that get them sent to rehab instead of jail. And what kind of politicians would these people more likely vote for? We have to ask why such a law even exists in the first place.

Obama isn't only a hypocrite because he supports the criminalization of something he admittedly took part in. Under the laws he apparently supports, he's a hypocrite because he wouldn't even be able to vote for himself if he happened to have been caught doing those things in the past.

Having said all that, it would be hard for the first black president to end the Drug War. Nixon was the one to visit China first, and it would be best if the Republicans actually (for once) supported a real life policy change that reflected their stated core beliefs: smaller government and individual choice.

Joined: 28 Jan 2003Location: It's not a superiority complex when you really are superior

Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject:

Mr. BlackCat wrote:

Perhaps most of all, we have to consider that felons in the US lose the right to vote. Literally millions of people across the US cannot vote because they happened to get caught with some weed. .

Only two states (Kentucky and Virginia) have life long denial of voting to convicted felons. And in many/most states smoking weed (as opposed to dealing it) is considered a misdemeanor not a felony (depending of course on the amount you are caught with and the state laws.)

I doubt there are MILLIONS who can't vote because of this.

According to this website there are 5.85 million Americans who can not vote

Now your claim is "millionS" (capital mine). So that would mean at a bare minimum two million. So according to you OVER a THIRD of the Americans who can not vote can not vote solely because they smoked some weed and not any of the myriad other crimes they might have committed.

That sounds statistically improbable that more than 1/3 of all disenfranchised felons are disenfranchised because of the same crime. And given that many states don't view it as a felony (unless you are caught with a large amount) that sounds even more unlikely.

Perhaps most of all, we have to consider that felons in the US lose the right to vote. Literally millions of people across the US cannot vote because they happened to get caught with some weed. .

Only two states (Kentucky and Virginia) have life long denial of voting to convicted felons. And in many/most states smoking weed (as opposed to dealing it) is considered a misdemeanor not a felony (depending of course on the amount you are caught with and the state laws.)

I doubt there are MILLIONS who can't vote because of this.

According to this website there are 5.85 million Americans who can not vote

Now your claim is "millionS" (capital mine). So that would mean at a bare minimum two million. So according to you OVER a THIRD of the Americans who can not vote can not vote solely because they smoked some weed and not any of the myriad other crimes they might have committed.

That sounds statistically improbable that more than 1/3 of all disenfranchised felons are disenfranchised because of the same crime. And given that many states don't view it as a felony (unless you are caught with a large amount) that sounds even more unlikely.

Do you just CTRL+F this site looking for my name just to 'catch' me. My goodness.

But yes, you're right. I misspoke in that paragraph. I should have said ALL drugs instead of just pot. However, I never said everyone that looks at pot the wrong way gets a felony conviction or that every felon is barred from voting for life. Those are the extremes you put into what I said.

Some people, probably millions, cannot vote each election cycle because of drug offences (I'd had to research how many convictions make up the total of felony charges, and it's really not important enough to me). Yes, "only" 5.85 million can't vote, but that's each election. So if we take into consideration that many states eventually lift the ban, that means even more Americans are denied the vote over time. And if we accept that this affects the poor more, can we also assume that they are less likely to go through the process to re-enfranchise themselves if it involves taking days off work, fees and/or lawyers? So, essentially, while some of these people may technically be allowed to vote again, we can safely assume a large percentage of them do not go through the process and therefore are still disenfranchised from their original drug charge. Adding these people to the new felons who cannot vote makes millions that have been denied their suffrage from drug laws.

Now, I'm sure you're going to argue all this, or semantics, or the meaning of 'is', but I'll just say it's really not that important. The fact of the matter is, drug laws are unnecessarily harsh in the US and their penalties have political consequences.

You know there is a problem with the judicial system when a person is sentenced 80 years for heading up and growing a pot ring, while Sandusky can have his way with little boys and only get 30 years in prison...

I think the bigger issue here is the criminal element of pot. The Drug War costs the US incredible amounts of money, not just in 'fighting' drug use but mostly in incarcerating so many people. Something like 50% of the jail population in US is there for drug crimes (too lazy to look it up right now). Not a coincidence that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world. If the Tea Baggers and Republicans were really serious about cutting the budget they'd be all over this, never mind the incredible potential in tax revenue.

Then you have the fact that police and judicial officials could spend more of their time and resources on real crimes like rape and murder. Imagine that, instead of chasing down 15 year olds smoking a doobie in a park, cops could be putting more footwork into tracking down that missing kid.

Perhaps most of all, we have to consider that felons in the US lose the right to vote. Literally millions of people across the US cannot vote because they happened to get caught with some weed. And who does this affect the most? The poor, minorities and other such groups that can't afford lawyers that get them sent to rehab instead of jail. And what kind of politicians would these people more likely vote for? We have to ask why such a law even exists in the first place.

Obama isn't only a hypocrite because he supports the criminalization of something he admittedly took part in. Under the laws he apparently supports, he's a hypocrite because he wouldn't even be able to vote for himself if he happened to have been caught doing those things in the past.

Having said all that, it would be hard for the first black president to end the Drug War. Nixon was the one to visit China first, and it would be best if the Republicans actually (for once) supported a real life policy change that reflected their stated core beliefs: smaller government and individual choice.

I read somewhere you've got a bigger prison population that all OECD nations combined, or something like that. It's insane.

Oh, and hold your horses...Nixon only visited China after the road had been paved by countries like Sweden and Canada, so don't be so quick to say he was the ''first to visit China'' with the implication that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize for it.

It's like how a couple of years ago the American media was talking about the opening of Vietnam...yeah, 30 years after every other country in the world had been openly trading with it. Wait and see, you'll hear the same song when the US finally stops the Cuban embargo.